advancements in mechanical sealing - api 682 fourth edition · advancements in mechanical sealing -...

Copyright © 2013 by Turbomachinery Laboratory, Texas A&M Engineering Experiment Station

Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth International Pump Users Symposium

October 1-3, 2013, Houston, Texas

ADVANCEMENTS IN MECHANICAL SEALING - API 682 FOURTH EDITION

Michael B. Huebner

Flowserve Corporation

Deer Park, TX, USA

Gordon S. Buck

John Crane Inc.

Baton Rouge, LA, USA

Henri V. Azibert

A.W. Chesterton Co.

Groveland, MA 01834

ABSTRACT

API 682 is the leading document for

mechanical seals in petrochemical, chemical, and

pipeline services worldwide. It has combined the

aspects of seal design, testing, standardization, and

applications to provide the users and OEMs alike

with a common source of information for

mechanical seals. As seal technology has

advanced, the standard has expanded to incorporate

new seal designs, materials, seal selection

guidance, and piping plans. Although the standard

is not yet published, the final draft has been

prepared and gives us notice of the upcoming

requirements. This tutorial will cover the major

changes introduced in the Fourth Edition.

HISTORY OF API 682

Mechanical seals have been accepted as the

standard method for sealing rotating pumps for

many years. While some mechanical seal standard

existed, they were generally buried in other

standards such as DIN 24960, ANSI B73 and API

610. All of these standards were primarily pump

standards and any seal references were directed at

how mechanical seals would interact with the

referenced pumps.

In the late 1980’s a group of refinery

equipment engineers and managers began to

compare sealing solutions in refinery applications.

This group, led by V. R. Dodd of Chevron, came

up with a general plan and the American Petroleum

Institute (API; Washington, D.C.) agreed to

establish a standard for mechanical seals: API 682.

A Task Force was formed in 1990 and the first

meeting was held in January 1991. This Task

Force was comprised of fourteen members from

various refineries, seal and pump manufacturers.

As part of the process in developing the standard,

the Task Force created standard definitions for

concepts such as seal types, seal arrangements, and

seal qualification tests. API 682, First Edition, was

published in October 1994.

API 682 First Edition was one of the most

successful standards in API’s history with sales in

over 25 countries. While the First Edition Task

Force had in effect created a standard that was used

throughout the world, they had not authored an

international standard. In order to gain

international acceptance, the American Petroleum

Institute opened up the standards development

process to global input from the International

Organization for Standardization (ISO; Geneva,

Switzerland).

In addition to international review, the

Second Edition introduced the concept of seal

categories and new seal designs such as gas seals

and containment seals. Additional options for seal

configurations and orientations (such as dual face-

to-face and back-to-back) were added. The scope

of the standard was also broadened to include seals

for chemical duty pumps. In the process new

piping plans and test qualification procedures were

developed to cover the new scope. The Second

Edition of API 682 was confirmed by the

international community as ISO-21049 in 2002

with only minor changes from API 682 Second

Edition. To completely align API 682 and ISO

21049, API 682 Third Edition was issued in 2004.

Since the publication of the Third Edition,

seal technology has continued to advance. End

users and OEMs have made recommendations to

expand the scope so that the benefits of the

standards could be applied to new applications and

new seal designs. Improvements in piping plans

have made seal installations more reliable. New

seal selection concepts have been developed. The

API 682 Task Force worked to incorporate the

industry needs and new technology into the new

standard. The resulting work, API 682 Fourth

Edition continues the tradition as the leading

standard for mechanical sealing. Recently, the

American Petroleum Institute has moved to issue

its standards independently of the ISO standards

organization. For this reason, the next edition of

API 682 will only be issued as API 682 Fourth

Edition and not as ISO 21049.

OVERVIEW OF FIRST EDITION

The mission statement for the First Edition

Task Force was captured in the first section of the

standard:




This standard is designed to default to the

equipment types most commonly supplied that have

a high probability of meeting the objective of at

least three years of uninterrupted service while

complying with emissions regulations.

Although this mission statement no longer

appears in the standard, it is important to realize its

impact not only on First Edition but on subsequent

editions. There were several key assumptions

made by the First Edition Task Force in meeting

this goal.

address 90% of the applications in a

typical refinery

address a limited range of shaft sizes and

operating conditions

default to one solution.

The First Edition of API 682 was filled not

only with the technical details normally associated

with a standard but also with a thorough

explanation of how seals should be applied and the

background behind many of the requirements of

the standard. The document contained notes and

comments that gave the reader an insight into the

Task Force’s reasoning behind many of the

requirements. Originally, these notes and

comments were intended only for the Task Force;

however, the reviewers of the draft standard asked

that they be kept in the finished document. Some

comments were expanded to become tutorials and

were moved to the appendix.

The First Edition also provided a seal

selection guide for a number of typical refinery

applications. Before this could be done, it was

necessary to categorize refinery applications into a

number of services: Non-hydrocarbon, Non-

flashing hydrocarbon, and Flashing hydrocarbon.

In order to formulate the selection guide, it

was also necessary to categorize the many different

types of seals that were used in refinery services.

Three seal types, A, B, and C, were designated to

cover pusher seals, bellows seals, and high

temperature seals respectively.

Prior to First Edition, multiple seals were

designated as being either “tandem” or “double”

seals; however, advances in seal design had

rendered these classic terms obsolete. As a result,

there was some confusion on how multiple seals

were designated. The Task Force decided to use a

more descriptive designation and chose to define

dual seal arrangements. A dual seal would be two

mechanical seals used in the same seal chamber.

The fluid between these two seals could be either

pressurized or unpressurized. Three standard

arrangements were defined: Arrangement 1 would

be a single seal, Arrangement 2 would be a dual

unpressurized seal, and Arrangement 3 would be a

dual pressurized seal.

End users wanted assurances that the seals

offered by the OEMs were capable of meeting the

API 682 goals when run under actual conditions.

The only way to do this was to require seal

performance testing, termed Qualification Testing,

on process fluids under representative pressures

and temperatures. The goal of the qualification test

was to simulate a long-term steady state run

followed by a process upset. The simulated

process upset consisted of pressure changes,

temperature changes and included loss of flush.

Five fluids were selected for the qualification tests:

water, propane, 20% NaOH, cold oil and hot oil.

These five fluids included a wide range of

viscosity, vapor pressure, specific gravity, specific

heat and atmospheric boiling point. In addition,

there were actually three other "test fluids" -- the

buffer/barrier fluids: glycol/water, diesel, and low

viscosity oil.

API requires a periodic review of its

standards and as sealing technology evolved it

became apparent that API 682 First Edition should

be updated.

OVERVIEW OF SECOND AND THIRD

EDITIONS

After the release of API 682 First Edition, gas

seals and dry running containment seals became

more common in many industries. New piping

plans for gas seal control panels and containment

seals were necessarily required and developed. In

addition, many users and manufacturers wanted to

expand the scope of seal configurations and

orientations that had been specified by First

Edition.

Another criticism of API 682 First Edition

was that it considered only API 610 pumps and

only refinery applications. The chemical and

petrochemical industries routinely use ASME

pumps in addition to API 610 pumps. Broadening

the scope of pumps covered by API 682 would




allow standardized seals to be applied in a greater

number of industries.

The First Edition was written from the

perspective of refinery applications and focused on

heavy duty pumps and seal designs. Since the

standard was being applied to other industries,

users recognized the need to select seals according

to the severity of the application. This need was

met by defining seal categories. There are three

categories: Category 1, 2, and 3. Category 1 seals

were largely intended for non-API-610 pumps.

Category 2 seals were intended for API 610 pumps.

Category 3 seals were also intended for API-610

pumps and were essentially the same as the

original API 682 First Edition seals.

The Task Force also recognized that not all

seals were contacting wet seals. While this

technology was certainly the dominant method of

applying mechanical seals, other designs were also

commonly used. Three new seal types were

introduced in the Second Edition: dry running

containment seals, non-contacting seals and dual

gas barrier seals. Containment seals are the outer

seal in a dual unpressurized seal arrangement. In

the case of a dry running containment seal, the

containment seal will be exposed primarily to

buffer gas or vaporized process fluid. Dry running

containment seals may be either contacting or non-

contacting. Non-contacting inner seals were also

introduced in Second Edition. A non-contacting

inner seal is designed to operate on liquid, vapor,

or mixed phase fluids. Dual gas barrier seals are

used in Arrangement 3 and designed to run

primarily on a gas barrier fluid such as nitrogen.

The seal arrangement describes the number of

seals per cartridge, the orientations of dual seals,

and the relative pressure of the buffer/barrier fluid.

A chart of acceptable configurations is shown in

Figure 1. Where multiple arrangements are listed

in a column, they are shown in order of default

selection. The arrangements are described by an

arrangement code shown in the figure.

Piping plans are a critical component in the

successful design of a sealing system. These plans

describe methods of controlling the environment

around the seal, conditioning the sealed fluid,

collecting and controlling seal leakage, and

monitoring seal performance. Several new piping

plans were introduced in the Second and Third

Editions. These included additional options for

dual pressurized liquid seals as well as new piping

plans to support containment seals and dual

pressurized gas seals. The new piping plans were:

Plan 14 – combination of Plan 11 and

Plan 13 is primarily used in vertical

Plan 53A – same as Plan 53 in the First

Edition

Plan 53B – closed loop with bladder

accumulator providing pressurization

Plan 53C – closed loop with piston

accumulator providing differential

pressurization

Plan 65 – monitoring atmospheric seal

leakage

Plan 71 - dry running containment seals.

Plan 72 - supplies buffer gas for dry

running containment

Plan 74 – supplies barrier gas for dual

pressurized gas seals

Plan 75 – collects and monitors liquid

leakage from dry running containment

seals

Plan 76 – collects and monitors vapor

leakage from dry running containment

seals

Qualification testing was one of the most

significant contributions of the First Edition. This

required that seals, offered as compliant to API

682, must have successful been tested to a strict

qualification procedure. The Second Edition

expanded on this by defining acceptance criteria

for all qualification tests. The maximum allowable

leakage during testing was 1000 ppm (vol) vapors

(as measured by EPA Method 21) or 5.6 g/h liquid

leakage per pair of sealing faces. The maximum

allowable face wear at the completion of the testing

was less than 1% of the available seal face wear.

Second Edition also added new tests for

containment seals and dual pressurized gas seals .

Although the exact cost is unknown, it is

estimated that the seal manufacturers have invested

between 5 and 10 million U.S. dollars in capital

equipment in order to conduct the qualification

tests specified by API 682. As the tests have been

ongoing since 1994 there is perhaps an additional 5

to 10 million dollars of operating costs associated

with the tests. It is likely that all manufacturers

have not yet completed a full slate of tests and that

API 682 qualification testing will continue for

years.




OVERVIEW OF THE FOURTH EDITION

Although the Third Edition of API 682 and

ISO 21049 were published in 2004, the contents

were essentially the same as the Second Edition of

API 682 published in 2002. A Task Force was

formed in 2006 to begin working on the Fourth

Edition. The first assignment for the Fourth

Edition Task Force was to answer questions and

comments regarding previous editions. The Task

Force members soon realized that major changes,

including reorganization and editing, were

necessary in order to clarify the specifications of

API 682.

NEW DEFINITIONS

API 682 has created definitions for many of

the common features and attributes of mechanical

seals and systems. When new concepts are

introduced or options are added to the standard,

they must be captured in the definitions. The

number of definitions has increased and the

wording made more concise and descriptive. The

longer, more involved definitions have been moved

from Section 3 into the general body of the

standard. For example, the definitions of

Arrangements, Categories and Types have been

moved into Section 4.

Mechanical seal terminology can be found in

other standards outside of API 682. Previously

there had been no attempt create consistent

definitions and terminology across these different

standards. The definitions in the Fourth Edition

have been revised to be more consistent with terms

that are used in the sealing industry in general. To

help accomplish this, the Task Force worked with

members of the Fluid Sealing Association (FSA;

Wayne, PA) to insure that all definitions are

consistent across various standards and industry in

general. Below are the new definitions added to the

Fourth Edition.

Atmospheric Leakage Collector

Auxiliary Sleeve

Barrier/Buffer Fluid Chamber

Containment Device

Containment Seal Chamber Leakage

Collector

Dynamic Secondary Seal

Engineered Seal

External Circulating Device

Fixed Bushing

Fixed Throttle Bushing

Pumped Fluid/Process Fluid

Seal Sleeve

Segmented Floating Bushing

Strainer

SEAL TYPES

Seal Types describe the basic design features

of the seal. These definitions are carried over the

previous editions. Type A is a balanced, cartridge

mounted seal which utilized elastomeric secondary

seals. Type B is a cartridge mounted seal which

utilizes the flexible metal bellows and elastomeric

secondary seals. The Type C Seal is a cartridge

mounted high temperature bellows seals which

utilizes flexible graphite secondary seals. Other

requirements such as face materials and elastomers

are tied to these definitions.

The Fourth Edition expands on these

definitions slightly. Type A and B seals have

historically been defined as having flexible rotating

elements. This means that the springs or bellows

assembly will rotate with the shaft. This was

selected as the default design in the First Edition

due to the high population of these designs in the

refinery industry. Type C seals have historically

defaulted to stationary flexible elements. There are

many cases, however, when it is necessary and

beneficial to change from the default designs. For

this reason, Type A and B seals are no longer

defined as having rotating flexible elements and

Type C is not defined as having a stationary

flexible element. Instead, both rotating and

flexible elements are allowed on all seal types and

are considered to be technically equivalent.

Any seal which is outside of the scope of the

standard (by design or operating window) is

defined as Engineered Seal. An Engineered Seal is

not a seal Type but rather identification that special

design features may be required to meet the

application conditions. The seal OEM is free to

deviate from any or all of the requirements of the

standard in order to design an appropriate seal.

There are no special qualification testing

requirements for an Engineered Seal.

In industry, there is sometimes a need to

provide a seal which challenges the operating

window for any one seal type. In these cases, seal

OEMs can provide a mix of Seal Types within the

same seal cartridge. For example, an Arrangement

3 (dual pressurized seal) could be configured with

a Type B inner seal for improved solids handling

and a Type A outer seal for high pressure




capability. This design flexibility is specifically

allowed in the Fourth Edition.

SEAL CONFIGURATIONS

Seal Configuration refers to the orientation of

the seal components in an assembly. In previous

editions, these were defined as face-to-back, back-

to-back, and face-to-face and these terms are

carried over into the Fourth Edition. In theory, any

orientation (face to back, back to back, face to

face) can be used in a dual seal. However, note

that acceptance of any orientation is not necessarily

the same as endorsement because each orientation

has advantages and disadvantages with respect to

certain applications, performance and survival of

upsets.

DESIGN FEATURES

API 682 has had a great impact on the design

of mechanical seals. The background of this though

has been interesting. The standard was never

intended to be a specific guideline for how to

design a seal. With the wide variety of seal types,

application conditions, and operating windows, the

implications of design features on the performance

of the seal is outside the scope of any one design

standard. The standard does however list

requirements which have been considered to be

good design practices. This has been a challenging

and moving target since the scope of the standard

has continually changed. In the earlier editions,

many design features were stated as default or

required features. The Task Force recognized that

many of the requirements were over restrictive and

minimized the use of many equally successful

design features. For these reasons, the Fourth

Edition has moved from defining “standard”

designs (which imply a requirement) to “default”

designs (which imply that other options are

available).

In the First Edition, the scope was limited to

heavy duty seals in large seal chambers. This

allowed for large design features and clearances.

As other pump designs (smaller chemical duty

pumps) and other seal designs (e.g. gas seals) were

allowed into the standard, the same set of design

features were not required and often would not

physically fit with the required seal design features.

For this reason, the standard has modified the

features required for specific designs.

The seal requires lead-in chamfers if a

secondary seal will be installed over a sharp edge

or corner. This was intended to prevent O-ring

damage and the standard has called out minimum

requirements for large cross section O-rings with a

large radial squeeze. Seal designers often use

Figure 1. Seal Arrangements and Configurations




different O-ring sizes and radial squeezes internal

to the seal if it is required for the seal design. These

have different chamfer requirements. The Fourth

Edition states that gasketing internal to the seal

cartridge is up to the seal OEM and may vary from

the published recommendations.

Seal faces which can be exposed to reverse

pressure in operation or a vacuum under static

conditions must have the faces retained so they

will not dislodge under these conditions. In

previous editions, the figure illustrating this

requirement showed a snap ring retaining the

face. While mechanical devices such as snap

rings are commonly used, it is not the only

option. Many seals are designed which provide

hydraulic loading of the seal face into the gland

by virtue of the face gasketing. These designs can

operated with either OD or ID pressurization and

still maintain proper operation. These options are

described and illustrated in the Fourth Edition.

Figure 2. Examples of face retentions methods

One of the most difficult aspects of the

standard focuses on clearances between rotating

and stationary components. There is an inherent

tendency to make clearances very large. This has

the benefit of providing addition space around the

seals for fluid circulation and radial motion.

Unfortunately, it also has the effect of limiting

design features and, in some cases, degrading the

performance of the seal. In the First Edition, the

requirement for 3mm [1/8”] radial clearance was

based on fluid circulation in the seal chamber and

this was carried on through the following editions

regardless of size, seal type, or equipment.

Clearance around other components such as

bushings and pump rings were also defined in the

previous editions of the standard. Some design

features, such as clearance between the ID of a

stationary component and OD of a rotating

component, were not defined.

In the Fourth Edition, the Task Force

reevaluated the requirements of the radial

clearances considering all of the seal Types,

Categories, Arrangements, and design features.

These were combined into a single table to clearly

illustrate the clearances and their impact on the seal

design. This has resulted in a more complex but

more logical set of clearances for the scope of the

standard.

Table 1. Clearances Between Rotating and

Stationary Components

Figure 4. Minimum Clearances






These specifications come with specific

caveats which are listed in the standard. The seal

components are not intended to restrict shaft

movement. Clearances used on a specific design

must be adequate to ensure reliability and safety.

Listed clearances are minimums and are intended

for use in API 610 and ASME B73 pumps. Finally,

the clearances are intended to prevent contact and

not based on cooling or circulation. These

clearances are intended to be applied to the scope

of equipment defined in API 682 Fourth Edition.

Non-cartridge seals, older/obsolete pump designs,

or other types of rotating equipment may require

different values.

Some reviewers have been critical of these

changes and believe these are too lenient. The Task

Force end users and seal OEMs considered these

comments seriously by carefully reviewing their

current design standards and history of seal

failures. The resulting clearances specified by the

standard have proven to be acceptable in service

and provide the seal OEM with the best flexibility

in seal designs. It is understood however that these

are minimal values and not necessarily used in

every design or application. It is the responsibility

of the seal OEM to ensure that the seal design

clearances are correct for the seal application and

component. Clearances on other features such as

fixed and floating throttle bushings are unchanged

from previous editions.

Vapor pressure margin is the difference

between the seal chamber pressure and the vapor

pressure of the fluid. This is an important

consideration since contacting wet (CW)

mechanical seals require liquid for cooling,

lubrication, and fluid film support. In the First

Edition, this was simply stated that the seal must

have a minimum 3,5 bar [50 PSI] or 10% vapor

pressure margin. In the Second Edition, the

standard introduced the concept of a temperature

margin. This would evaluate the application to

determine if the fluid could absorb the heat

generation of the seal faces and not flash. This

specific evaluation was particularly useful for

pumps with very low vapor pressure, stable fluids

operating at low pressures. While these various

evaluations are all reasonable, some have proven to

be difficult to apply or to obtain the data to

properly evaluate. For these reason, the Fourth

Edition has reverted to a simple requirement for 3,5

bar [50 PSI] margins. The requirement for a

minimum seal chamber pressure of 0.35 bar [5 psi]

above atmospheric pressure has been retained from

the previous editions.

Mechanical seals have ports in the seal gland

which are required for connection to the piping

plans. In previous edition, these ports were

required to be plugged with solid metal plugs and

sealed with appropriate lubricant or sealant. The

purpose of this requirement was to ensure that the

ports would not be inadvertently left unplugged

after the seal was installed into the pump. While

this was a sound requirement, it led to many

unforeseen complications. Many times, installing

and removing plugs during shipping, pump testing,

and final installations resulted in damaged threads.

There were also many instances of seal failures

being caused by excessive thread sealant

contaminating the seal faces. Even when installed

correctly, there was always a concern for selecting

the correct sealant/lubricant based on chemical

compatibility with the process fluid and operating

temperature. In some chemical or finished products

services, the sealant could result in unacceptable

process contamination.

For these reasons, the Fourth Edition has

eliminated the requirement to install metal plugs in

all of the ports. The concern for leaving ports open

has been addressed by installing red plastic plugs

with a center tab to allow it to be easily

distinguished from a solid metal plug. In addition,

the plug shall have a bright yellow warning tag

informing the user in several languages to connect

or plug all ports as required by the service. The seal

will be shipped with a plastic bag containing the

correct metal plugs, in the correct material and with

a seal assembly drawing illustrating the piping

connection requirements.

Figure 6. Illustration of plug and label

Many common seal designs have components

which must be assembled onto the seal sleeve. It is

critical that these be located correctly to provide

the proper seal loading and axial motion capability.

In the earlier editions of the standard, this concern

was addressed by requiring that the seal sleeve




have a shoulder for positively locating the

components in the correct location. The Fourth

Edition recognizes that there are other means of

achieving this such as dog point set screws (with

locating holes) and pins.

It is critical that seal sleeves have an adequate

thickness to maintain the required cylindricity for

assembly, installation, and removal. In the previous

editions, this was listed as a minimum of 2,5 mm

[0.100’] at the thinnest section. The definition of

the thinnest section included the groove for the

setting plate slot. In the Fourth Edition it was

recognized that the setting plate slot is a local

features (much like the holes for the drive collar)

and did not reduce the rigidity of the sleeve. The

thickness requires remain the same with the

exemption of the setting plate slot.

Set screws are the most common method for

attaching a seal drive collar to the pump shaft. The

assembly method, while fairly simple, is based

quite a number of assumptions. The set screw,

when installed, must penetrate into the shaft

plastically deforming the shaft around the point of

the set screw. This requires that the set screw

material is harder than the shaft and that it is

installed with adequate force to properly seat into

the shaft. The resulting load in the set screws

prevents the screw from backing out in most

applications. When designing a drive collar or

locking device with set screws the designer must

consider the ultimate holding capacity of the

assembly. Adding additional set screws will

increase the load rating but not in an additive

manner. The standard also limits the number of set

screws to less than nine without customer approval.

To help the designer correctly design the set

screws capacity of the drive collar, the Fourth

Edition provides guidance on estimating the set

screws load capacity. The standard also introduces

the requirement that the load rating must be at least

150% of the load generated by the seal design at

maximum pressure for the seal category. Examples

for these calculations are shown in the Annex F.

Seal face materials are one of the most

critical design factors of any seal and they have

received special attention in all of the editions of

the standard. For Category 1 seals, the basic

requirement has previously been for premium

grade, blister resistant carbon versus self-sintered

silicon carbide (SSSiC). The selection of SSSiC

was driven by the superior chemical compatibility

characteristics of this material in chemical duty

applications. For Category 2 and 3 seals, the

requirement previously was for premium grade,

blister resistant carbon versus reaction bonded

silicon carbide (RBSiC). This SiC was selected due

its long record of excellent performance in refinery

services.

In practice however, the selection of face

materials is more complex and, for a variety of

reasons, seal OEMs may select materials

differently than these default selections. For

example, it is critical that SSSiC is used in caustic

services regardless of the seal Category. In most

cases, resin impregnated carbons are used although

in light hydrocarbons, metallized carbons provide

superior performance. Metallized carbons may also

provide better performance under high pressure

conditions due to a higher stiffness and better heat

transfer characteristics.

In the Fourth Edition, all seals, regardless of

the seal Category will be have default face

materials of premium grade, blister resistant carbon

vs either SSSiC or RBSiC. The seal OEM and user

will determine the specific grade which is best

suited for the specific application. In addition,

other materials such as graphite loaded SSSiC,

graphite loaded RBSiC, and tungsten carbide can

be used with purchaser’s approval. All materials

are considered to be homogeneous and all must

have been qualified through the seal qualification

procedures.

Elastomer gasket materials are used as

secondary seal throughout most seal assemblies.

These often take the form of O-rings although

other shapes are also used. The selection of

elastomeric materials depends primarily upon the

required chemical compatibility and durometer

(hardness) required by the design. Fortunately there

are a wide variety of compounds to choose from in

standard O-ring sizes. API 682 has historically had

very few requirements for elastomers. The basic

elastomer was a fluoroelastomer (FKM) with

options for perfluoroelatomers (FFKM) for more

aggressive services. The Fourth Edition adds

additional requirements. The standard will now

require that materials have a proven track record

(two installations with a least one year operation).

Elastomer requirements have also been tied to the

seal qualification testing.

Type B seals are designed for general duty

application in heavy duty pumps (API 610). The

standard material of construction requires Alloy

C276 bellows for improved physical properties and




chemical resistance. This applies only to the

bellows core (diaphragms). In the Fourth Edition,

there is an additional allowance for the use of

Alloy 718 for the bellows. This can have improved

corrosion resistance in some applications. This seal

would still have elastomer secondary seals so it

would not be substitute for a Type C seal.

Internal circulating devices (often called

“pumping rings”) are devices which provide

circulation from a seal cavity to an external

accessory device and back. These are most

commonly used on Plan 23, Plan 52, and Plan 53

systems. The actual design of the device is not

covered in the specification but there are some

design features which are noted. The porting in the

seal gland will have the fluid outlet at the top (to

allow venting) and the inlet at the bottom of the

gland as space allows. This helps promote

thermosyphoning. Designs for the circulation

device include considerations such as tangential

ports, cutwaters, dams, and the selection either an

axial flow or radial flow device designs. The

pumping ring performance must meet performance

criteria determined by temperature rise in the

piping plan.

REQUIREMENTS FOR SEAL CATEGORIES

A Seal Category defines a set of requirements

covering the features, materials, operating window,

and intended equipment. In general terms, a

Category 1 seal is intended for chemical duty

pumps. A Category 2 seal is a seal with limited

features and is intended for heavy duty pumps. A

Category 3 seal is a seal with full features and is

also intended for heavy duty pumps. Some of the

implications of the Seal Category include injection

design and throttle bushing requirements. There are

also documentation and testing requirements tied

into these definitions.

Seal Categories were originally introduced to

address the concerns of supplying a full featured

(and often more expensive) seal into an application

where a high level of sophistication and features

was not required. The Category 1 and 2 seals have

been used most extensively with Category 3 used

more sparingly in demanding or critical

applications.

In the Fourth Edition, the higher level design

features of a Category 3 seal have been placed onto

the Category 2 seals. All Category 2 seals must

now have distributed flush arrangements. All

Category 2 seals must have floating carbon throttle

bushing. There is also an option to specify a

segmented carbon bushing in Category 1 and 2

seals if additional leakage restriction is required.

The only effective differences between Category 2

and 3 are now the testing, seal qualification, and

documentation requirements.

Table 2. Comparison of Requirements of Seal Categories




ACCESSORIES

Seal accessories can be defined as any piece

of hardware which is required to support the

mechanical seal or the seal piping plan. These

include such items as an orifice, seal cooler, or seal

barrier fluid reservoir. API 682 has historically

defined design characteristics of accessories and,

over time, these have increased in scope to cover

more accessories. In addition, the level or detail

and specificity of the requirements have increased.

The Fourth Edition carries over most of the

requirements from previous editions but has added

these new accessories.

Air Coolers

Air cooling is a useful alternative for piping

plans when external utilities (such as cooling

water) are not available. Air coolers are also often

the only solution when high temperatures fluid

must be cooled due to the potential of fouling in

water cooled seal coolers. The standard places

many of the same requirements on water cooled

and air cooled seal coolers such as tags (venting of

Plan 23 systems), tubing (minimum 0.500”, 0.065

wall 316 stainless steel), and over pressurization

protection. In addition, seal cooler sizing is now

based on application conditions and not the pump

shaft size as was done in previous editions. Fins

may be aluminum or stainless steel.

Strainer

While strainers have been used sparingly in

most seal applications, they are supported in the

defined piping plans. Strainers are limited to

minimum mesh size 125um.

Reservoirs

Reservoirs have specific requirements which

have been carried over from previous editions.

These include materials of construction, port

locations, instrumentations, and dimensions. The

standard specified that the working volume of the

barrier or buffer fluid must be either 3 gallons (for

shaft sizes smaller than 2.500”) or 5 gallons (for

shaft sizes greater than 2.500”). In the Fourth

Edition, the size requirement is expanded to require

that working volume is sufficient for a minimum of

28 days of operation without the need to add

additional barrier or buffer fluid.

Bladder Accumulators

Bladder accumulators are used to provide

pressurization of the barrier fluid in Plan 53B

systems. The expansion of the bladder allows the

system to make-up lost barrier fluid leakage while

providing feedback on seal performance through a

pressure drop in the system. One of the challenges

in selecting a bladder accumulator is selecting a

size which allows for longer periods of time

without operator intervention while not

experiencing a large fluctuation in pressure. Annex

F in the Fourth Edition is an excellent tutorial on

how to size, pre-charge, and operate a Plan 53B

system in operation.

To support these efforts, the standard will

define some basic characteristics of an

accumulator. Standard sizes are 20 L [5 gal] and 35

L [9 gal] depending upon shaft size. These sizes

were selected to provide a minimum of 28 days of

operation without operator intervention. The shell

of the accumulator shall be carbon steel and the

bladder material will be recommended by the

manufacturer based on available options and

operating conditions. Because Plan 53B pressures

can vary with ambient temperatures, a pressure

alarm with a temperature bias is recommended.

Tags and labeling requirements are also included.

Piston Accumulator

A piston accumulator is used to provide

barrier fluid pressurization in Plan 53C systems.

This consists of a piston with different

hydraulically loaded areas which provides

pressurized barrier fluid based on a reference

pressure in the pump. The accumulator is defined

in two sizes: maximum 2,8 L [0.7 gal] for shaft

sizes 60mm or less and maximum 5,1 L [1.28 gal]

for shaft sizes larger than 60mm. The metallic

material should be the same as the seal gland and

the gasketing elements (O-rings, lip seals) shall be

suitable for exposure to both the process and

barrier fluid.

Collection Reservoir for Liquid Leakage

Liquid leakage which leaves the seal gland

can be collected with a Plan 65 and Plan 75. The

Condensate Collection Reservoir, used with a Plan

75, had been defined in previous editions. Even

though the Plan 65 has been defined and used

extensively in some industries, there has been no

attempt to create a definition for a standard Plan 65

detection vessel. The Fourth Edition defines that




the Plan 65 system is considered part of the

pressure boundary and is subject to pressure

requirements of the rest of the seal support system.

The reservoir shall have a capacity of at least 3 L

[0.75 gal] and be equipped with a locally indicating

level transmitter. The collection reservoir should be

constructed from schedule 40 pipe.

SEAL TESTING – AIR TEST

The First Edition introduced the concept of

air testing of seal assemblies prior to shipping. This

was intended to perform a quality check on the

assembly and identify face distortion, gross

damage or missing gaskets. This testing has been

very successful and may be one of the most

significant contributions from the standard. There

have been some discussions on the allowable size

of the testing vessel and the allowable leakage

rates.

As the scope of the standard has increased, it

has made it difficult to apply the same test criteria

to all seals. For example, some seal designs (gas

seals or containment seals) may be designed to

operate on a slight leakage. Other designs such as

dual pressurized seal assemblies have such a small

volume between the seals that the tests are very

sensitive. The standard notes these testing

challenges but does not change the test pressure or

acceptance criteria from previous editions. When

testing at 1,7 bar [25 PSI] the pressure drop cannot

exceed 0,14 bar [2 PSI] in five minutes.

SEAL TESTING - QUALIFICATION

TESTING

Seal qualification testing is an attempt to

demonstrate that the mechanical seals offered in

compliance with API 682 have a reasonable

assurance that they can meet the performance and

life expectations in the standard. While this seems

to a trivial matter, the reality is that it requires a

thoughtful approach to address the many different

options, designs features, materials, arrangements,

and seal types available in the standard. This

process began with liquid seal qualification testing

in the First Edition and expanded to include gas

seal and containment seal testing in the Second

Edition. While most of the qualification testing

remains the same as previous editions, the Fourth

Edition introduces a few new requirements and test

procedures.

One of the challenges for seal OEMs is to

perform the required testing for the correct options.

There are literally thousands of combinations of

variables which could be tested. Seal OEMs have

invested millions of dollars in testing to comply

with the standard and it is problematic to introduce

new test requirements especially if it voids

previously valid testing. For this reason, API 682

has created a common sense balance between

testing and benefits. One of the methods used to

achieve this is to allow for evaluating “core seal

components” and then reusing them in different

designs without additional qualification testing.

Figure 7. Hierarchy of Mechanical Seals




This is one of the key differences between

Category 2 and Category 3. The problem within the

standard was that it did not specifically define what

is considered “core seal components.”

The Fourth Edition addresses this by setting

up a hierarchy of seal parts (Figure 7.) The core

components consist of the seal ring and mating

rings. Adaptive hardware consists of sleeves glands

and circulating devices. Seal Categories, Types,

Configurations complete the description of the seal

cartridge. These definitions are used to describe

how core seal components can be shared among

different seal models and categories.

In the First Edition, testing dual seals

required that the inner seal be tested as an

individual test followed by an evaluation of the

complete dual seal assembly. These requirements

continued in the Second and Third Editions even as

the standard added additional options for face-to-

face and back-to-back orientations. There were

some serious technical difficulties with applying

the test requirements to these new orientation

options since the seal would be exposed to

operation with high ID pressurization. This

limitation was so severe that no seal OEMs offered

these as an option.

To address this concern, a new procedure was

developed to demonstrate the performance of dual

liquid seals in face-to-face and back-to-back

orientations. The complete seal assembly must be

tested and be accepted according to the existing

dual liquid seal test criteria. In addition to this test,

the seal must demonstrate its ability to survive

reverse pressurization and upset conditions which

might be experienced in service. After operating at

steady state conditions, the inboard side of the seal

will be flooded with liquid and brought up to base

point conditions. The barrier fluid will then be

decreased to 0 bar [0 PSI] for one minute to

demonstrate the seals ability to handle high reverse

pressure. The barrier fluid will be re-pressurized

and reach equilibrium. The seal then be shut down

and sit statically for one hour with full base point

conditions on the inner seal and no pressure in the

barrier fluid system. This will demonstrate the seal

ability to seal process fluids with a loss of barrier

pressure.

Another consideration in qualification testing

is the requirement for evaluating seal face

materials. A seal qualification test is not only

defined by the seal model, size, and test fluid but

also the face material combination. To minimize

testing requirements and encourage the

introduction of new face materials, the standard

allows face material combinations to be qualified

as a mating pair and used across multiple seals with

a single test. When a seal is qualified on with a

specific mating pair on a specific fluid, any other

qualified seal may use the same mating pair in the

same fluid without additional testing.

Due to the complexity of the qualification

testing procedures, the detailed protocol for

qualification testing of seals was moved to the

annex of the standard. This re-organization

simplified the standard for the majority of users

while providing the necessary details required by

seal manufacturers to accurately and consistently

conduct tests. Annex I also provides a historical

perspective on the qualification testing and the

intent of the testing.

Annex I of the standard illustrates how

qualification testing for different seal

configurations has generally been organized by

seal manufacturers (Table 3). While the design

details may vary, the basic seal configuration

largely dictates the qualification test scope,

procedure and fluid. Due to the large number of

possible combinations of these parameters

(approximately 4000) it is unlikely that seal

manufacturers have tested or will test all possible

combinations in all possible qualification test

fluids. Instead, seal manufacturers often first focus

their testing efforts on the defaults of API 682,

their own most popular products and the most

representative test conditions for specific service

applications. Users should verify that the required

seal qualification tests have been performed for

their intended application.

SEAL SELECTION PROCEDURE

API 682 provides guidance on selecting

mechanical seals for specific applications. This is

an informative annex which means that it only

provides guidance and is not a requirement of the

standard. Although chemical and petrochemical

industries are now covered by API 682, this

selection procedure does not attempt to cover every

application due to the myriad of process fluids

involved in these industries. The procedure is a

series of steps that directs the user to collect

information on the application, regulations, and

local requirements. This information is used




to select the seal category, type, arrangement, and

piping plan. While there are some limitations to

this approach, it has provided users with solid

advice on considerations which must be made

while selecting a seal. The Fourth Edition keeps the

current selection procedure but also adds an

alternative selection process.

One of the primary reasons why a user selects

a specific seal arrangement is to mitigate process

fluid leakage to atmosphere. Seals which pump

relatively benign process fluid can easily be sealed

with a single seal because leakage to the

atmosphere is not critical or can be easily

controlled. Arrangement 2 seals can provide

addition leakage control by capture leakage across

the single seal and collecting it for proper disposal.

Some small amounts of process fluid may leak to

the atmosphere. If no leakage is allowed, a user

will often select an Arrangement 3 seal which

prevents leakage by virtue of the high pressure

barrier fluid. The larger question is however, when

should I use each of these options? How does a

user know when leakage is considered hazardous?

In Fourth Edition, an alternative method was

presented based on methodology proposed by

Michael Goodrich. This alternative method is

primarily directed towards selection of the sealing

arrangement using Material Data Sheet

information. The alternative method takes into

account the toxicity of a process fluid and not just

its physical properties. The selection is based on

the fluid hazard code according to the United

Nations Globally Harmonized System of

Classification and Labeling of Chemicals (GHS)

and the European Union Regulation on the

classification, and packaging of substances and

mixtures. The substances are categorized in “H”

statements and “R” codes. Tables are provided

placing the H statement or R code into a one of

four groups. A Seal Selection Logic is then

provided based on these groups to select the seal

arrangement including the additional need for a

floating carbon bushing for Arrangement 1 seals.

a A test seal cartridge is specified by the parameters in this column and the representative materials and geometry of its core seal

components. In dual seals combinations of face material pairs, types and flexible element positions are possible. b For a specific service, a seal vendor's commercial product only needs to be tested in the representative test fluid.

c Default

d 2CW-CS and 2NC-CS shall be tested as inner seal, arrangement and containment seal in accordance with I.4.1 and I.4.5.

e 3NC-BB, 3NC-FB and 3NC-FF shall be tested as arrangement in accordance with I.4.1 and I.4.6.

f Commercially available petroleum based diesel fuel

Table 3. Organization of Seal Qualification Testing




This seal selection takes into account exposure

limits for hazardous or toxic chemicals and

mixtures of these chemicals, and is thus a benefit to

a broader audience, not just petroleum refining

based processes.

It is important to note that a hazard

assessment is only one criterion which must be

considered. Other consideration such as the fluid

properties, dry running of the equipment, seal

leakage detection strategies, leakage disposal

options and process contamination must also be

considered before making a final selection.

DATA SHEETS AND DATA TRANSFER

API 682 has contained data sheets in every

edition and these have continually evolved in

response to user feedback and the needs of the

standards. These serve not only as a means to

communicate operating conditions and purchasing

specification but also to specify between the many

options used in the standard. The Fourth Edition

will contain a two page data sheet and, unlike

previous editions, it will cover all of the seal

categories. Data sheets are available in either SI or

U.S. Customary Units. The data sheet as developed

by the Task Force has intelligence built into the

selections by activating or deactivating cells based

on the selections. It is not clear how these will

distributed during the release of the standard.

The transfer of required data and documents

is the joint responsibility of purchaser and vendor.

Annexes C, E and H of the standard include

representative forms and checklists. It is not

necessary to use the exact forms from Annexes C,

E and H but those forms contain all the information

to be transferred.

SEAL CODE

A seal code is a clear method of

communicating the basic specification for the

mechanical seal. While API 682 has introduced

new seal codes with each edition, there has been

reluctance from industry to abandon the old five

digit API 610 seal code (e.g. BSTFN). The primary

problem with the old seal code is that it does not

apply to the requirements and definitions in API

682. In the Fourth Edition, the Task Force

attempted to address this by introducing a new seal

which contains elements of the old API 610 code

(Table 4).

Table 4. Seal Code Description

Category designated as 1, 2, or 3 Face M – C vs Ni-WC Materials N – C vs RBSiC Arrangement designated as 1, 2, or 3 O – RBSiC vs Ni-WC P – RBSiC vs RBSiC Type designated as A, B. or C Q – SSiC vs SSiC R – C vs SSiC Containment L – plain bushing S – Graphite loaded RBSiC vs Devices F - f ixed bushing graphite loaded RBSiC C – containment device T - Graphite loaded SSiC vs S – segmented bushing graphite loaded SSiC X - Unspecified X – unspecified Shaft Size designated as nearest largest Gasket F – fluoroelastomer (FKM) size in three digits Material G – PTFE spring energized Example: 20mm designated 020 H – nitrile I – perfluoroelastomer (FFKM) Piping Plan designated by plan number R – flexible graphite separated by “/” if required X – unspecified Example: 11/52




PIPING PLANS

A seal piping plan is designed to improve the

environment around the mechanical seal and

therefore increase the performance and reliability

of the seal. Piping plans range from very simple

systems such as fluid recirculation into the seal

chamber to complex systems which provide

pressurization, cooling and circulation for support

fluids and gases. The standard not only defines the

basic operation of the piping plan but also the

requirements for instrumentation and the design of

seal support equipment.

In the latest revision to API 682, the majority

of the piping plans are carried over from the

previous edition without any modifications. There

are however several overall changes to existing

piping plans as well as the addition of several new

piping plans.

Modifications to Existing Piping Plans

One of the most significant changes in API

682 Fourth Edition is the move from switches and

indicators to transmitters. Historically, piping plans

used switches to detect if a pressure or level has

exceeded a certain value. Operators monitored

parameters such as pressure, temperature, or level

by visually watching indicators or gauges. In the

Fourth Edition, piping plans have moved to a

design requirements where transmitters, with local

indicators, are the default selection for monitoring

piping plan parameters. This still allows the

operator to visually monitor the parameters at the

equipment but also monitor them in the control

room through the continuous output from the

transmitter.

NEW PIPING PLANS

Plan 03

Historically, a mechanical seal installed into a

closed seal chamber with no circulation was

defined as a Plan 02. This was used primarily in

low duty applications, high temperature services,

or process fluids with a high solids content. In

more recent years, pump OEMs have engineered

pump designs which create a circulation of process

fluids in and out of the seal chamber to provide

seal cooling. This is primarily done by using a

tapered seal chamber with flow modifiers to create

the circulation. This eliminates the need for

common piping plans such as a Plan 11. These

designs are most commonly used on smaller, lower

duty pumps such as ASME B73 in chemical duty

services. The Plan 03 was introduced to define this

method of providing circulation for the mechanical

seal (Figure 8).

Plan 55

Dual mechanical seals are divided into two

basic modes of operation. They can be operated as

an Arrangement 3 seal with a barrier fluid

maintained at a pressure greater than seal chamber

pressure. They can also be operated as an

Arrangement 2 with a buffer fluid maintained at a

lower pressure than the seal chamber pressure.

Arrangement 3 seals have historically had an

piping plan option which allowed for circulation of

the buffer fluid from an external source. This was

defined as a Plan 54. There was no comparable

piping plan defined for the circulation of an

unpressurized buffer fluid from an external source

for Arrangement 2 seals. At the request of end

Figure 8. Plan 03




users on the API committees, the Plan 55 was

introduced to provide this option (Figure 9). A Plan

55 is defined as the circulation of a low pressure

buffer fluid to an Arrangement 2 seal. Just like the

Plan 54, the details of the design of a Plan 55

system are outside the scope of API 682 since they

are so varied and depend heavily of the

requirements of the specific installation and

industry.

Plan 65A and Plan 65B

Plan 65 has historically defined a method of

detecting atmospheric leakage from a seal. This

was done by directing the leakage from the seal

gland or pump bracket to a ground level detection

vessel which contained an orifice in the drain line.

If a high rate of leakage was flowing into the

detection vessel, the fluid level in the vessel would

increase and would be detected by a level switch

indicating a seal failure. The two primary aspects

of this plan were that it detected a high flow rate

and was only instrumented with a level switch.

In the Fourth Edition, end users

recommended allowing for an option to detect

leakage by measuring accumulated leakage. In this

plan, the liquid would flow from the seal gland or

pump bracket into a closed collection vessel. As

the leakage collected over time, the level in the

collection vessel would rise and provide

information of the performance of the seal. This

plan will require that the operator periodically

drain the collection vessel to allow for continuous

operation.

Figure 9. Plan 55

Figure 10. Plan 65A




To distinguish between the two options, the

first method, detection of a leakage rate, has been

designated as a Plan 65A (Figure 10). The second,

new piping plan which detects accumulated

leakage has been defined as a Plan 65B (Figure

11). Both of these plans require by default the use

of a level transmitter to allow for trending of the

level in the collection vessel. Both of these plans

are considered as technically equivalent and can be

used to satisfy the requirements of a Plan 65.

Plan 66A and Plan 66B

These two piping plans are new editions to

API 682 and ISO 21049. They were introduced to

capture methods of detecting seal failures and were

primarily used in the pipeline industry. The two

primarily objectives of these piping plans are to

allow for early detection of seal leakage and to

minimize seal leakage from leaving the seal gland.

A Plan 66A achieves this by installing two close

clearance throttle bushings into the seal gland

behind the seal face. Leakage from the seal will be

restricted by the inner bushing and increase the

pressure behind the seal face. This will be detected

by a pressure transmitter in this cavity. As leakage

flows past the seal it will flow into the drain cavity

at a low pressure and be directed into the drain and

Plan 65 system (Figure 12).

The option for a Plan 66B allows the

variation of providing only one close clearance

bushing in the gland and a plug orifice in the drain

line. Leakage past the seal face enters the drain

cavity and is partially restricted from flow out of

the drain. If the leakage rate is high, the drain

cavity will become pressurized and will be detected

by a pressure transmitter connected to this cavity.

While this variation is not as sensitive as the Plan

66A option, it can be easily adapted into existing

seal glands (Figure 13).

Figure 11. Plan 65B




Plan 99

One of the challenges with defining and using

seal piping plans is that different users may want to

provide slight variations to the defined plans. Very

slight changes, such as changing a pressure

indicator to a pressure transmitter, has historically

been done without changing the designation of the

piping plan. There are however cases where the

changes are significant and may require different

instrumentation or operating procedures for the

equipment. Piping Plan 99 was introduced to

address this situation.

A Plan 99 is an engineered system which

must be fully defined in the project or purchasing

specification for the system. There are no defined

objectives for the plan or no defined equipment

required. The Plan 99 may be a simple addition to

an existing piping plan or an entirely new piping

plan. There is an expectation that all applicable

requirements of the standard for instrumentation,

design guidelines, or auxiliary equipment that is

applicable to the Plan 99 will be applied.

CONCLUSIONS

API 682 continues to evolve to meet the

needs of seal users and manufacturers. The Fourth

Edition has been developed to address advances in

seal technology and expand the scope of

applications beyond that covered in the first,

second and Third Editions. Additional piping

plans and seal qualification testing have been

added to Fourth Edition. While there have been

changes, the objectives of the standard have

remained the same: to provide longer seal life

while meeting emissions requirements. The

resultant document will continue to serve as the

Figure 12. Plan 66A

Figure 13. Plan 66B




most significant standard for mechanical sealing

systems in centrifugal pumps.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the American

Petroleum Institute for its cooperation and

permission to publish this paper. The authors also

wish to extend their gratitude to all members of the

API 682 Task Force whose tireless work and

dedication made this paper possible. Special

recognition goes to the API 682 Task Force

Chairman, Mr. Rick Eickhoff, for his leadership,

patience and sacrifices throughout the development

of this standard.

REFERENCES

API Standard 610, Tenth Edition, 2004,

“Centrifugal Pumps for Petroleum, Heavy

Duty Chemical, and Gas Industry Services”,

October 2004; ISO 13709: 2003; American

Petroleum Institute, Washington, D. C.

API Standard 682, First Edition, 1994, “Shaft

Sealing Systems for Centrifugal and Rotary

Pumps,” American Petroleum Institute,

Washington, D.C.

API Standard 682, Second Edition, 2001, “Pumps

– Shaft Sealing Systems for Centrifugal and

Rotary Pumps,” American Petroleum

Institute, Washington, D.C.

API Standard 682, Third Edition, 2004, “Pumps –

Shaft Sealing Centrifugal and Rotary

Pumps,” American Petroleum Institute,

Washington D.C.

Arnold, T.,Fone, C, 2010, “Mechanical Seal

Performance and Related Calculations,”

Proceeding of the Twentysixth International

Pump Users Symposium, Turbomachinery

Laboratory, Texas A&M University,

College Station, Texas, pp. 97 – 111.

Buck, Gordon S., 1993, "Implications of the New

Pump Shaft Sealing Standard", Hydrocarbon

Processing Magazine, Gulf Publishing

Company.

Gabriel, Ralph and Niamathullah, Syed K., 1996,

“Design and Testing of Seals to Meet API

682 Requirements”, Proceedings of the 13th

International Pump Users Symposium,

Turbomachinery Laboratory, Department of

Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M

University, College Station, Texas.

Goodrich, Michael, 2010, “Risk Based Pump-Seal

Selection Guideline Complementing ISO

21049/API 682”, Proceedings of the 26th

International Pump Users Symposium,

Turbomachinery Laboratory, Department of

Mechanical Engineering, Texas A&M

University, College Station, Texas.

Huebner, M. B., Thorp, J. M., Buck, G. S.,

Fernandez, C. L., 2001, “Advances in

Mechanical Sealing – An Introduction to

API 682 Second Edition,” Proceeding of the

Nineteenth International Pump Users

Symposium, Turbomachinery Laboratory,

Texas A&M University, College Station,

Texas, pp. 59 – 65.

ISO/FDIS 21049:2011(E), 2011, “Pumps – Shaft

Sealing Centrifugal and Rotary Pumps,”

International Standard Organization,

Geneva, Switzerland

Lavelle, Kenneth E., Key, William E., Grace,

Ronald L., Young, Lionel A., Wang, George

and Holman, Al C., 1993, “Improvement of

a High Temperature Bellows Seal”,

Proceedings of the 10th International Pump

Users Symposium, Turbomachinery

Laboratory, Department of Mechanical

Engineering, Texas A&M University,

College Station, Texas.

advancements in mechanical sealing - api 682 fourth edition · advancements in mechanical sealing -...

Documents